Insurer cannot get payment for tenants’ water damage

An insurer cannot successfully seek compensation from tenants for the water damage caused when a drone they allegedly flew inside their apartment hit a sprinkler head, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

Sathiyaselvam Thangavel and Sasikala Muthusamy were tenants who leased an apartment from Seaford Apartment Ventures LLC in Seaford, Delaware, according to the Delaware Supreme Court’s ruling in Donegal Mutual Insurance Co. a/s/o Seaford Apartment Ventures LLC t/a The Villages of Stoney Brook Apartments v. Sathiyaselvam Thangavel and Sasikala Muthusamy.

Seaford Apartment Ventures filed an insurance claim with its insurer, Marietta, Pennsylvania-based Donegal Mutual Insurance Co., for the $77,704.06 in water damages the drone allegedly caused, according to the three-judge panel’s ruling.

Donegal then sued the tenant through subrogation, alleging the tenants were negligent and had breached the property’s rules and regulations.

The tenants moved for summary judgment, arguing the law considers them co-insureds under the landlord’s fire insurance policy absent an express agreement to the contrary.

The trial court granted the tenant’s summary judgment motion dismissing the case, and was affirmed by the unanimous Delaware Supreme Court panel.

The lower court correctly found that “the Seaford Apartment lease did not clearly express an intent that the tenants were responsible for the water damage in this case,” the ruling said.

As another court has pointed out in another case, the lease’s “general provisions do not support a specific intent to require the tenant to obtain fire insurance to cover the landlord’s property or that the tenant would be liable if they were negligent in causing a fire,” the ruling said.

The insurer’s attorney did not respond to a request for comment, while the tenants’ attorneys could not be contacted.